Terrapin Station

Right and I answered that.

What I disagree with is the idea that the proposition "there are two balls in the bag" mind-independently describes anything, correctly or incorrectly...

You specifically asked me about descriptions, right?

I agree with that. The flux out there is the facts. (Well, keeping it simple again, when I detailed the exception earlier that just caused confused, s...

Well you seem to be conflating propositions and what propositions are about (facts) at this point.

Of course.

The issue is that objectively there's no "accurately describing" or not of a proposition. It's a matter of an individual judging whether the propositi...

Objectively, "There are two balls in that bag" is just some pixels activated on a monitor (or mobile device screen or whatever the case may be).

It sounds like we have completely different ontologies. If I weren't a realist then yeah, I'd need some other conception of facts. I'm just a garden v...

Yeah, definitely. That in no way implies that propositions would objectively, accurately describe facts or not.

Mind-independently? That's a nonsensical idea. I'm having that same discussion in another thread at the moment, too.

If one judges a proposition to correctly describe facts, it's a true proposition. If one judges a proposition to incorrectly describe facts, it's a fa...

I think there is an objective reality--the subjective part of reality is only a very small part of it--but objective reality is not at all immune from...

Propositions.

I don't know if that's what javra was getting at with me. If so, that's why there was some confusion. Given the way that I use "facts" and that I'm a ...

Just fyi for anyone reading my comments in this thread (or elsewhere). I don't use "facts" in that sense. I only use "facts" in the "states of affairs...

You're deflecting from the fact that you just substituted "equivalence" for "equals."

Maybe try something that would work instead next time.

So how would you like to proceed instead of asking me "why identify fallacies"? Go back to "One use of it is in identifying fallacies." Your response ...

Okay, then the first guideline for participating in conversations with me is to not ask me a question as if you do want me to explain something to you...

"Equals" and "equivalent" are identical in your view, and are both denoted by the "=" sign?

If you're asking me a question such as "why identify fallacies" in the context of a conversation that I'd feel is worth having--and in good faith, I'd...

What is "it" in that sentence?

When I say "I just want to check that before I explain it to you," I expect you to answer in good faith.

You're fine reasoning fallaciously? Or you have no idea why you wouldn't be fine with that to this point? I just want to check that before I explain i...

If "The window is in the wall" being true has something to do with reference, but reference doesn't work mind-independently, then how is truth mind-in...

One use of it is in identifying fallacies.

You want the tool to be able to keep working as it does in perpetuity. It's not much of a tool otherwise. You're using it to build things, say, but th...

How would they mind-independently refer to something? Take the sound or ink marks "window." It mind-independently refers to something by ______?

I kind of already explained that. The value is the critical methodology. The idea of critical thinking, of examining assumptions we might be making, o...

In my view, it's misconceived to look at philosophy, as an academic discipline, as something where the goal is to provide answers or solutions in the ...

There's no difference on the conventional usage of "identical" in philosophy. But in your view, the difference is what? And I'm just going to stop her...

What you're not really explaining is how you believe it works mind-independently, in terms of the mechanics involved. Okay, so say that we have the so...

Well that's a standard way to refer to it. There are other ways, but I was trying to make it as simple as possible, as it seems weird to me that there...

It's not like this is an idiosyncratic view. I'm referring to identity in the 2+2 is identical to 4 sense. Because it's useful to think in "type" term...

The simplified answer is yes, facts are not relative to feelings or beliefs. If you call that "absolute" okay, but I don't know why we'd take "relativ...

Re "institutions," it's certainly not anything that I keep track of either way, so who knows? But I'd guess that there aren't many institutions that e...

Then I don't really understand the idea. Facts do not need any sort of justification. They're simply the way that things are. That doesn't mean they'r...

Well, empirical claims are not provable. Proofs only work in formal systems we've set up, within the context of which a conclusion can not be wrong.

What I'm asking you is how it works--basically in "mechanical" terms--that those words refer to something. You're claiming that they refer to somethin...

"Establish this to be the state of affairs--i.e., the fact of the matter" sounds like you're instead saying "Determine whether the proposition 'Facts ...

Proofs are simply relative to the formal systems we set up. A proof in system x is simply a matter of a conclusion incorrigibly following in system x,...

Whereas in my view, it's obviously a case of mistaken cleavage on your part. The identity also has nothing to do with our abilities to name anything, ...

Being stern about one's one view isn't actually an argument. That people are stern in that manner is one of the reasons that disagreements wind up soc...

Some of your wording is confusing to me, but in a nutshell: It's important for understanding my views that one understand the distinction between true...

The thing is that it's trivially clear that people can conceptualize it in a different way. Again, people (students mainly, because of the social circ...

Could you describe how you believe that works?--That is, describe the mechanics of it in some detail?

Yeah, to even get at the concept of a unit that can be counted you need to learn to conceptualize things in a particular way. So it's basically noting...

Of course. And of course it can be and often is disregarded. Not that that depends on truth being relative. One can disregard something if truth isn't...

What it is for a statement to correspond to reality is for a person to make a judgment about the relation of the statement--and specifically its meani...